People vs. Samanoding

Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, “transport” of a dangerous drug means to carry or convey it from one place to another, and the offense is consummated when a person, with the intent to move the drug, is found in possession of a substantial quantity at an airport prior to a domestic flight, regardless of whether actual transit has commenced. Further, non‑compliance with the photographing requirement of Section 21(1) does not render the seized drugs inadmissible where the unbroken chain of custody preserves their identity and evidentiary value.

On June 18, 2005, at around 10:45 a.m., appellant presented himself at the Manila Domestic Airport to take a Cebu Pacific flight bound for Davao City. Mark Anthony Villocillo, a non‑uniformed personnel frisker assigned at the initial check‑in area, physically searched appellant and felt what he suspected to be rice inside appellant’s oversized white rubber shoes marked “Spicer.” When appellant removed the shoes at Villocillo’s request, three plastic sachets were found — two inside the left shoe and one inside the right. As Villocillo extracted the sachets, appellant attempted to hand him a rolled wad of paper bills and said, “Baka pwedeng pag‑usapan ito.” Villocillo called his supervisor, SPO2 Nolasco Peji, who arrested appellant and apprised him of his rights. The sachets were marked and sent for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance as methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) with a total weight of 196.63 grams. Appellant was charged with transportation of dangerous drugs. He raised the defenses of frame‑up and extortion, denied ownership of the shoes, and contested the integrity of the seized evidence.

• The Search and Seizure: On June 18, 2005, at approximately 10:45 a.m., appellant arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport for a Cebu Pacific flight to Davao City. Mark Anthony Villocillo, a non‑uniformed personnel (NUP) frisker, conducted a physical search at the initial check‑in area and suspected that appellant’s oversized white rubber shoes branded “Spicer” contained what felt like rice. Villocillo asked appellant to remove the shoes and discovered three plastic sachets: two in the left shoe and one in the right. When Villocillo pulled out the sachets, appellant attempted to hand him a rolled wad of paper bills while saying, “Baka pwedeng pag‑usapan ito.”

• Arrest, Marking, and Investigation: Villocillo alerted his supervisor, SPO2 Nolasco Peji, who arrested appellant and informed him of his rights. Appellant was taken to an office and investigated by PO2 Edwin Caimoso, then turned over to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents who arrived at the scene. On the same day, the PDEA requested laboratory examination of the sachets, which were marked as “EXH‑A MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05,” “EXH‑B MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05,” and “EXH‑C MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05,” with corresponding signatures.

• Laboratory Examination: On June 19, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen, a forensic chemist, conducted a qualitative examination. The 196.63 grams of white crystalline substance tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

• Appellant’s Defense: Appellant denied wearing the “Spicer” shoes and claimed he was framed. He testified that after passing the metal detector, SPO2 Peji called him aside and said something had been recovered from him. He heard Peji tell another arrested person to settle the case so they could “pass” the “thing” to appellant. SPO2 Peji and Villocillo brought him to an office, where Peji forced him to admit ownership of the shabu and suggested settlement for ₱100,000.00, which appellant could not afford. Appellant claimed his wallet containing ₱1,600.00 and ₱2,000.00 from his pocket were taken. At the PDEA office, agents again pressured him to admit ownership.

• Lower Courts’ Findings: The RTC found Villocillo and SPO2 Peji candid, forthright, and credible; their testimonies were given full weight, and they were presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The trial court ruled that all elements of transportation — actual physical possession and control of the prohibited drugs, and presentation of the corpus delicti in court — were established. The CA affirmed, concluding that the chain of custody was properly maintained from seizure to laboratory examination to court presentation, and that the absence of photographs did not destroy the integrity of the evidence.

• Frame‑up and Extortion: Petitioner maintained that the drug evidence was planted by the arresting officers and that SPO2 Peji attempted to extort ₱100,000.00. He denied wearing the Spicer shoes and insisted that Peji forced him to admit ownership and confiscated his money when he refused.

• Chain of Custody: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody because the physical inventory and photograph prescribed by Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 were not taken, thus casting serious doubt on the identity of the seized drugs.

• Non‑presentation of Forensic Chemist: Petitioner contended that without the testimony of the forensic chemist who examined the substance, the laboratory report was insufficient to prove that the material was shabu, and therefore the corpus delicti remained unproven.

• Transportation Established: The People argued that all elements of transportation under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were proved beyond reasonable doubt: appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of 196.63 grams of shabu while inside the airport about to board a domestic flight, which constitutes the act of moving a dangerous drug from one place to another.

• Chain of Custody Preserved: The prosecution asserted that the chain of custody from seizure, marking, laboratory examination, to presentation in court was intact. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, and any procedural lapse in failing to photograph the evidence did not undermine the credible testimonies of the apprehending officers.

• Presumption of Regularity and Admissibility of Official Report: The forensic chemist’s report was entitled to the presumption of regularity and was admissible under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as an entry in an official record. The prosecution had the discretion to choose its witnesses, and the non‑presentation of the chemist was not fatal.

• Transport: Whether the act of possessing a dangerous drug at an airport with the intent to board a domestic flight consummates the crime of “transport” under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 even though the accused had not yet physically departed or traveled any distance.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the failure of the apprehending officers to photograph the seized drugs as required by Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 rendered the evidence inadmissible, notwithstanding the claim that the chain of custody was otherwise established.

• Non‑presentation of Forensic Chemist: Whether the prosecution’s failure to present the forensic chemist who examined the seized drugs was fatal to the case, given that the laboratory report was admitted into evidence.

• Transport: The offense of transporting dangerous drugs was held complete even though appellant had not yet boarded the aircraft. “Transport” under R.A. No. 9165 means to carry or convey from one place to another; the essential element is the movement of the drug. Appellant’s presence at the airport for the specific purpose of boarding a flight to Davao City, coupled with his possession of a substantial quantity of shabu concealed in his shoes, sufficiently demonstrated the intended movement. The quantity — 196.63 grams, far exceeding the five‑gram threshold discussed in the congressional deliberations as indicative of intent to traffic rather than personal use — reinforced the conclusion that appellant was engaged in transportation.

• Chain of Custody: The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The drugs were immediately marked upon confiscation, a laboratory examination was promptly sought and conducted, and the evidence was presented in court. The failure to strictly comply with the requirement to photograph and physically inventory the items under Section 21(1) did not render them inadmissible, because the controlling consideration is whether the identity of the dangerous drug has been safeguarded throughout the chain of custody.

• Non‑presentation of Forensic Chemist: The non‑presentation of the forensic chemist did not operate to acquit appellant. The prosecution has the discretion to determine which witnesses to call. The report of an official forensic chemist enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The corpus delicti was established through the physical presentation of the drugs and the unbroken chain of custody, not solely through the chemist’s testimony.

• Definition of “Transport” under Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — “Transport” means to carry or convey a dangerous drug from one place to another; the essential element is the movement of the drug. The crime is consummated by the act of carrying or conveying combined with the intent to move the drug from one point to another. Actual geographical displacement is not required when the accused is at a point of departure — such as an airport — with a substantial quantity of drugs and a specific travel itinerary.

• Chain of Custody — Preservation of Integrity Overrides Strict Procedural Compliance — In prosecutions for drug offenses, the decisive factor is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Strict observance of the physical inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 is not an absolute necessity; failure to follow these steps does not automatically render the drugs inadmissible if an unbroken chain of custody from confiscation to court presentation is otherwise established. (Reaffirming Inson v. People.)

• Presumption of Regularity of Official Forensic Reports — The report of an official forensic chemist who conducts a laboratory examination on seized substances carries the presumption of regularity. The prosecution is not compelled to present the chemist as a witness; the report is admissible as prima facie evidence under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, and its non‑production at trial does not defeat the prosecution’s case. (Citing People v. Quebral.)

• “‘Transport’ as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean ‘to carry or convey from one place to another.’ The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.” — This defines the statutory term and underscores the core conduct penalized.

• “While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another.” — Clarifies that the intended movement, not completed travel distance, is sufficient to constitute the offense.

• “Considering that the integrity of the seized substance has been duly preserved, failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21, Par. (a) of RA 9165 requiring the apprehending officers to physically inventory and photograph the confiscated items shall not render the evidence inadmissible.” — Articulates the principle that procedural lapses do not automatically lead to exclusion when the chain of custody otherwise ensures the identity of the evidence.

• San Juan v. People, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011 — Followed for the definition of “transport” and the requirement that the prosecution prove the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.

• Inson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011 — Applied to hold that non‑compliance with the photographing and inventory requirements of Section 21 is not fatal where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

• People v. Quebral, G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009 — Relied on for the rule that the non‑presentation of the forensic chemist does not warrant acquittal, because the chemist’s report enjoys the presumption of regularity and constitutes prima facie evidence under the Rules of Court.

• People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012 — Cited for the principle that the prosecution exercises discretion in choosing which witnesses to present.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes the transportation of dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death and a fine of ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00. Applied to sustain appellant’s conviction for transporting 196.63 grams of shabu by carrying the drugs to the airport with the intent to board a domestic flight.

• Section 21(1), Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for custody and disposition of seized drugs, including the requirement to physically inventory and photograph the items. The Court held that substantial compliance suffices when the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

• Section 44, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court — Entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. Applied to admit the forensic chemist’s laboratory report despite her absence from trial.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (concurred per his originally filed opinion), Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez.